Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is settled. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: result ordering (hits with findings first), the presence of a finding count per hit, and an explicit negative-scope statement that it does not describe the entities it returns. Pagination or result-size behavior is not covered, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the action, then chaining, then ordering guidance, then a boundary statement. Every sentence carries distinct information and none is redundant with the title or schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does: node ids, per-hit finding counts, and result ordering. It does not describe the full shape of a hit (id plus display name, possible synonyms) or whether the list is truncated, which is the only remaining gap for a one-parameter search tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds concrete example values ("magnesium", "vitamin D", "sleep", "creatine") that clarify the expected granularity of a query beyond the schema's "A name, synonym or phrase."

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Search the Catalyst evidence graph by name or synonym") and immediately scopes what it does versus its siblings with "It finds things; it does not say anything about them." An agent can distinguish it from get_findings, get_relations and reach without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly routes the agent onward: "Returns node ids to pass to get_findings or get_relations," naming the two downstream alternatives. It also gives selection guidance — "hits with findings come first, so the first hit with findings above 0 is usually the one to use" — which is actionable usage instruction rather than vague context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.